(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible
on behalf of any party,
when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as
to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or
contradiction:

(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible, on behalf of any
party,
either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a
prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

(1) furnishing, offering, or promising to furnish or accepting, offering, or
promising to
accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim;
and

(1) furnishing, promising, offering, accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept
a
valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and

(2) conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not
admissible.

(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations.

Exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is
presented in the
course of compromise negotiations is not required.

(b) Permitted Uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered
for
purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include
proving a witness's bias or prejudice; disproving a contention of undue delay; proving an
effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as
proving
a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. The court need not exclude evidence
otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise
negotiations.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Rule 408 was amended, effective March 1, 2008; __________________.

The policy underlying this rule is the furtherance of compromise and settlement of
disputes among parties. The general rule as to compromise finds support in North
Dakota
case law and similarSimilar objectives have been fostered in the North Dakota
Rules of
Civil Procedure and by statute. N.D.R.Civ.P. 68 provides that an unaccepted offer of
judgment is inadmissible in a proceeding except to determine costs. N.D.C.C. ch. 32-39
provides that a voluntary partial payment of a claim is inadmissible for the purpose of
determining either the amount of a judgment or the liability of a party.

Admissions of independent fact or other evidence of statements or conduct disclosed
in the course of a compromise negotiation are likewise protected by this rule. It is thought
that open and effective discussions of compromise may be held only if the parties know in
advance that they will not jeopardize their case by fully discussing all aspects of a claim.
This does not mean, however, that the mere recital of evidence during a compromise
negotiation precludes the admission of that evidence. The rule does not require the exclusion
of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of
compromise negotiations.

Rule 408 was amended, effective March 1, 2008. Subdivision (a) was amended to
prohibit the use of statements made in the course of settlement negotiations for impeachment
of a witness through prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. A further amendment to
subdivision (a) clarifies that a party cannot use its own statements and offers made in
settlement negotiations to prove the validity, invalidity or amount of a claim.

Rule 408 was amended, effective ______________, in response to the December 1,
2011, revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The language and organization of the rule
were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology
consistent throughout the rules. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on
evidence admissibility.

As part of the ________________ amendments, subdivision (a) was amended to delete
the reference to "liability" because "liability" is covered by the broader term "validity." No
change in current practice or in the coverage of the rule is intended.

Cross Reference: N.D.R.Civ.P. 12 (Defenses and Objections-When and How Presented-By
Pleading or Motion-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings); N.D.R.Civ.P. 68 (Offer of
Settlement or Confession of Judgment. Tender).